Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 58 (RAJ)

Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Akhil Bhartiya Varshiya Sadhu Margiya Jain Sangh, Bikaner

2012-01-04

SANGEET LODHA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the Civil judge (S.D.), Udaipur, whereby an application preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, UIT, Udaipur in terms of Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") for depositing the amount of compensation, stands rejected. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 5.2.2009 passed by the said Court rejecting the application preferred for reyiew of order dated 30.8.2008 ibid. 2. Indisputably, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 4.2.2006 in respect of the land acquired at the instance of UIT, Udaipur. The Collector gave notice of the award to the persons interested including the respondent herein in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act. However, the persons interested entitled to compensation did not accept the amount of compensation and therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer made an application for depositing the amount of compensation in the Court. However, the Court rejected the application vide order dated 30.8.2008 observing that the notice served upon the persons entitled for the compensation in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act is not placed on record. The petitioner preferred a review petition and placed on record the copy of the notice served under Section 12(2) of the Act yet, the review petition has been rejected by the Court holding that in the application filed for review of the order, it is not mentioned as to why the copy of the notice was not produced upto 31.8.2008. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act, it is not necessary to produce the notice served upon the persons entitled for compensation in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act and therefore, the application could not have been rejected by the Court on this count. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, the notice duly served was later produced on record and therefore, the Court should hot have rejected the application preferred for review of the order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as noticed above. 5. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, the notice duly served was later produced on record and therefore, the Court should hot have rejected the application preferred for review of the order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as noticed above. 5. As per provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act if the person interested entitled for the compensation does not consent to receive it or if there be no person competent to alienate the land or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation in the Court-to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted. Indisputably, in the application preferred before the Court, it was specifically mentioned that the khatedar of the land were requested to receive the amount of compensation by service of notice in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act and the notice was also published in the daily newspaper Danik Bhaskar, however, since the khatedars did not agree to receive the amount of compensation, the amount is being deposited in the Court. In considered opinion of this Court, in view of the averments made in the application, the Court should have accepted the amount of compensation sought to be deposited. It is true that on the directions being issued by the Court, the Land Acquisition Officer should have placed on record the notice served upon the khatedar for the satisfaction of the Court. But then, it is not the law that once the application was rejected by the Court on account of failure on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to produce the notice served in terms of Section 12(2) of the Act on the record, the fresh application for depositing the amount was not maintainable. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this Court, when a review application was preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer and the notice served upon the respondent was also placed on record, the Court should not have rejected the application preferred for review of the order and the amount sought to be deposited should have been accepted. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The orders impugned dated 30.8.2008 and 5.2.2009 are set aside. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The orders impugned dated 30.8.2008 and 5.2.2009 are set aside. The Court below is directed to accept the amount of compensation sought to be deposited by the petitioner in terms of the award. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******